Rajasthan Court February 1997 Judgments
Bajrang and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ134
M.A.A. Khan, J. 1. Smt. Sushila deceased was married to Subash appellant on 5-7-87. While living with her husband and other appellants who are her husband's mother, elder brother, younger brother and elder brother's wife, Smt. Sushila died on 31-5-88 of burn injuries. The case of prosecution is that the deceased used to be harassed and treated with cruelty by the appellants for bringing insufficient dowry. It is further alleged that Smt. Sushila's mother P.W. 2, Smt. Kalavati, her sister-in-law P.W. 1 Smt. Maya Devi and her brother P.W. 4 Chanan Mai though tried to satisfy the demand of the appellants for dowry by giving a T.V. set, an electric fan and other articles yet their demand went on increasing. It is further alleged that on 22-5-88 when the above witnesses reached the house of the appellants they demanded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from them failing which Smt. Sushila was to be tortured. After 8 or 10 days of the said incident, Smt. Sushila died of burn injuries and the incident was...
Tag this Judgment!Megha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3091
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 25-7-1992 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer held the EO/GO/R158/97/MPP/USA petitioner guilty of the offence under Section. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act), convicted him as such and sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. and Rs. 1 lac fine.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on Sept. 2, 1989 at about 6-00 p.m. at police station Jaisalmer PW-6 Pratap Singh Station House Officer (SHO) received a secret information to the effect that a short-statured man, who named himself as 'Chaudhary' was loitering around the hotels near the Railway Station and speaks of selling opium. The SHO took some of the members of subordinate staff with him and immediately left for the Railway Station. On reaching the Railway Station the SHO noticed the appellant going towards the back side of a hotel. On being given a call the appellant allegedly tried to run away but was apprehe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chand Kanwar Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj190; II(1999)DMC676; 1997WLC(Raj)UC594
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a petition by the petitioner-wife for transfer of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the non-petitioner-husband against her in the Court at Udaipur. The petitioner submits that she is a resident of Jaipur and she had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Jaipur and thereafter, husband filed a divorce petition at Udaipur. She submits that being a lady it is quite inconvenient for her to attend the Court at Udaipur and it would not be inconvenient for her husband to travel up to Jaipur. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that looking to the fact that the petitioner was a lady who will have to travel more than 400 kilometers up to Udaipur and face the trial of the case, so also looking to the fact that in any case the non-petitioner will have to attend the case filed by the petitioner at Jaipur, the case should be transferred from Udaipur to Jaipur. In reply, the learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2143
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374, Cr. P.C. by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 21-7-94 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 10/94.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story giving rise to the present appeal is that PW-7 Kesav Das (Kesa Ram), who is brother of injured PW-11 Nenu Ram lodged verbal report with the police station, Mundwa on 22-4-93 at 6.15 p.m. alleging that the accused (appellant). Ram Kishan was inimical to him for about last four years and, as a result, there were number of litigations pending in various Courts between the parties. On 22-4-96 itself at about 5 p.m. he along with his brother PW-11 Nenu Ram, while returning from Nagaur after having purchased goods, alighted from the bus at Balanda and had hardly covered a distance of 10 to 15 paces from the border of Balanda, accused Ram Kishan and his sons Kailash and Om Prakash suddenly appeared on the scene and they were surrounded by them. Ram Ki...
Tag this Judgment!Umaram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2793
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14-7-95 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in connection with F.I.R. No. 48/95 thereby accepting the petition of non-petitioner No. 2 Govind Prasad alias Bhagirath and thereby releasing the disputed jeep on his 'supurdginama' in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. At the very out set, it may be stated that, admittedly, the present petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana, where from the same was forwarded to the Police Station, Bardawa Under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of a case and, accordingly, F.I.R. No. 48/95 Under Section 379, I.P.C. was registered and, during the investigation of the same, the disputed jeep was seized from the possession of non petitioners No. 2 and 3 and taken into police custody and, lastly, holding that the dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Lal Vs. Sikar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN320
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner, who is a class IV employee of the Sikar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short 'the Bank'), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds inter-alia that he was initially appointed in the service of the respondent-bank w.e.f. 1.7.1985 as a Chowkidar on daily wages basis. After having served in different branches of the respondent-bank, his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 31.7.1986 and as a result thereof he was not allowed to join his duty w.e.f. 1.8.1986.2. The petitioner challenged the termination of his services by moving before the Prescribed Authority constituted under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act of 1958'). The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority were contested by the respondent-bank and the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 30.11.1987 declared the termination of the service of the petitioner as unlawful and direct...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Jute and Industries Vs. Certificate Officer and ors.
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)111STC815Tribunal
1. The question involved in this application is whether in the given facts the applicant No. 1 company is entitled to the protection of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short, "Act of 1985") against proceedings for realisation of sales tax and interest thereon under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, (henceforth referred to as "Act of 1941"). The application is filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 enacted under Article 423B of the Constitution of India, being one in the nature of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The applicant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having a jute mill at Sijberia in the district of Howrah.Applicant No. 2 is the Managing Director and a shareholder of the company. The case of applicant No. 1 is that on September 15, 1987 it was declared a sick company within the meaning of Act of 1985. The Board for Industrial and Financia...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Kumari Sisodia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj191; 1997(2)WLC541; 1997(1)WLN219
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner had applied for M.A. Hindi Examination a Two Years Course of Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur (hereinafter called 'the University'). She appeared in M.A. (Previous), Examination under Roll No. 92019 and secured first position by obtaining 251 marks out of 400 marks. After clearing the M.A. (Previous) Examination she appeared in the M.A. (Final) Examination, the result of which was declared on 14-3-1993 and in the result so declared, it was shown that she had secured 226 marks out of 400 marks in the M.A. (Final) Examination and, thus, the total marks in the M.A. (Previous) and M.A. (Final) Examinations came to 477 marks out of 800 marks. It is stated by the petitioner that in one of the subjects in the M.A. (Final) Examination i.e. 'Hindi Natya Evam Ranga-manch' in the result sheet it is shown that she had secured 40 marks out of 100 marks. She had apprehension that by way of inadvertence or otherwise or by way of mistake the totalling and comp...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Murlidhar Ishwardas Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC437; 1997(1)WLN218
B.J. Shethna, J.1. It is unfortunate that this petition of 1987 challenging the impugned order passed by the Revenue Board on 13.5.1987 (Ex. 3) has reached final hearing today, almost after 10 years. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the revision petition filed by the State Govt. and setting aside the order passed by the Revenue appellate authority on 19.2.1979 remanding the matter to the Tehsildar to decide it in accordance with law is absolutely a shocking order. Even if the Court is confirming the order passed by its sub-ordinate court then also it is required to record some reasons, if not detail reasons. While concurring the order passed by the courts below atleast it is required to assign proper reasoning. It cannot straight away allow the matter in two lines by stating that both the parties were heard and the order passed by the subordinate court is considered. The submissions made by the Govt. Advocate are required to be accepted and hence the matter is...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Vahid Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC398; 1997(1)WLN216
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. challenging the order of the learned Magistrate passed on 3.9.91 Under Section 457 Cr. P.C. entrusting the interim custody of Truck No. RSG 9025 on the Supurdagi of Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 2 arises under the following circumstances:2. One Ghasi Lal is stated to be the original registered owner of the vehicle in question. Abdul Vahid. petitioner appears to have purchased the said vehicle from Ghasi lal and became registered owner on thereof in the year 1981. It is alleged by respondent No. 2 that on 12.11.90 the petitioner had agreed to sell the vehicle to him for a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacks and an agreement of the even debt was executed between the parties. In part performance of the said agreement Suresh Kumar is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 1 Lack 25 thousand to Abdul Vahid who is stated to have delivered the possession of the said Truck to by Suresh Kumar. A sum of Rs. 65,000/- is further stated to have been pai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »